26. The release of the two captured soldiers wasn't addressed in res. 1701.

The resolution also states that only "government-sanctioned" bodies may bear arms. The Lebanese government has already stated that it has no intention of disarming Hizbullah, therefore they are "goverment-sanctioned" -- and hence, not in violation of resolution 1701.

OP3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon; no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government,

OP15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft,

(a) the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and

(b) the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorized by the Government of Lebanon or by UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11; full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state,

unfortunately it's not a real surprise to me that so many would be quick to condemn Israel for not allowing Hezbollah time to replenish their weapons

You might not have noticed but Israel launched an attack within Lebanon after the cease-fire went into effect. Rather than trying to shift the blame, it might be better to actually be capable of criticising Israel when it does the wrong thing, and imo, this attack shouldn't have happened...

Rather than trying to shift the blame, it might be better to actually be capable of criticising Israel when it does the wrong thing, and imo, this attack shouldn't have happened..

if Hezbollah was actually being disarmed (as they were supposed to be according to the agreement) instead of being resupplied and Israel went ahead and attacked them anyway, i absolutely would criticize them...

but really, why should Hezbollah be allowed to violate the cease-fire and start stockpiling weapons again?

Israel violated the ceasefire by carrying out a raid, inside Lebanon, here are some details of the raid. I'd thought I'd post them, since the *fact* that Israel violated the ceasefire, appears to be being ignored.

Israel's raid in the Bekaa Valley

Saturday's raid by Israeli commandos in eastern Lebanon was carried out by officers from Israel's General Staff Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal), known as "The Unit".

It is generally considered the Israeli Defense Forces' most elite special forces unit. Its primary function is to penetrate deep into enemy territory to gather field intelligence.

Such raids are top-secret and little has been reported in the Israeli press. However a number of details have emerged, mostly from Lebanon.

>snip

One Israeli officer was killed and two other officers were wounded in what unnamed Israeli military sources quoted by Haaretz newspaper said was a fierce battle:

"We had great luck that the operation didn't result in 10 fatalities from the force."

The BBC's John Leyne, who visited the scene of the attack, said the Israelis seemed to have run into much fiercer resistance than they anticipated before they were extracted by helicopter.

not to mention that Lebanon's statements they would not disarm Hizbullah - in southern Lebanon in particular - are basically an announcement that they will not abide by the terms of the cease-fire (see paragraph 8 of UNSCR 1701)

So I'll ask again - why is Israel the only one expected to abide by cease-fires?

Completely ignoring the *facts* about the Israeli violation of the ceasefire doesn't magically mean it didn't happen.

You're equating a couple of mortar rounds with a deliberate violation of the ceasefire, the raid by idf commandos 100km inside Lebanon? And now UN Security Council Resolutions are Good Things? Priceless.

Zero mention of the utter disregard for the ceasefire by Israeli forces, & an attempt to deflect criticism of said same, by completely misunderstanding, & ignoring the points I made. I was arguing against the fact that you were ignoring the Israeli violations, I didn't mention Hizbollah at all, that doesn't mean that I agree with, or support, or am ignoring any actions by Hizbollah. Try reading what I actually say, rather than what you think I say, or what is not said.

Are there any Hizbullah actions which you would consider a breach of the cease-fire?

the cease fire does allow israel to conduct defensive manuvers. one can question if the raid into the bekka valley was defensive but it is allowed.however hizbollah is clearly not allowed to rearm in the cease fire agreement. but they were attempting to do just that.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.